Peter_Phile

it's almost guaranteed due to certain psychotropic chemicals in gun oil, the gun companies add it in order to increase ammunition sales. They are in collusion with the ammunition companies who are both sponsored by Halliburton and the space aliens that want us for our calcium deposits. stop it , stop it!! yes, stop proving to us brits that americans can't tell jokes

tally ho !

Good luck - careful that rifle doesn't jump up and start shooting people at random, ok? but once he gets his gun...he could turn psycho and use it ti kill innocent people...if it was impossible for him to obtian a gun in the first place, you've taken that possible scenario out of the equation...and that's what the british government is trying to do. they are trying to put measures in place to stop some guns getting into the wrongs hands.... like i said before, if those measures also stop lawful gun owners having guns too, then in our governments eyes (and thankfully, many citizens eyes too) thats a price worth paying to take just a few guns off the streets that might get used to kill innocent people And if he couldn't get a gun he could use a knife, a car, a baseball bat... again, you're blaming a tool and not the USER of the tool. If you're looking at preventing the maximum number of innocent deaths, you need to look at alcohol, vehicles and swimming pools/bathtubs... the government is trying to do something to stop innocent people from getting killed by guns... since they can't kill people who they think might turn into a murderer, they are trying to take the weapons out of their hands.

it's almost guaranteed due to certain psychotropic chemicals in gun oil then i'm glad you've finally seen sense

i think it's interesting that the only people on here who are pro gun are Americans, why do americans on here, who are pro gun, think that is? why do you think people from other countries are not pro gun like the average American seems to be?

Good luck - careful that rifle doesn't jump up and start shooting people at random, ok? but once he gets his gun...he could turn psycho and use it ti kill innocent people...if it was impossible for him to obtian a gun in the first place, you've taken that possible scenario out of the equation...and that's what the british government is trying to do. they are trying to put measures in place to stop some guns getting into the wrongs hands.... like i said before, if those measures also stop lawful gun owners having guns too, then in our governments eyes (and thankfully, many citizens eyes too) thats a price worth paying to take just a few guns off the streets that might get used to kill innocent people

How many inoccent lives would have to be lost through people going on a rampage or kids having accidents with guns for your answer to change? How many innocent lives have to be lost to auto accidents before you advocate getting rid of cars? Do you have the same outrage for drownings? Accidental poisonings? Falls? If not, you are blaming a TOOL and not the *user* of the tool. can you explain how you can go on the rampage in a school with a gun, shooting children, if you don't have a gun ?

In the context of this discussion (excluding sporting concerns), the average gun fan just wants to have more than one option (asking the bad guy not to kill him) in a bad situation. It's a wish to try to take care of yourself rather than hope someone else will. Doesn't apply to me at my size, but some of my 100lb girlfriends would like to have more options than just locking themselves in the bathroom should a stalker ex come barging in the door, waiting for that 20 minute police response time. ok, it's a direct question at you... is it a price worth paying (the odd person getting killed by a gun that would have been taken out of circulation otherwise) just so that you can keep your gun? i don't suppose for one minute you'll answer this question directly First you have to address the absolute NONSENSE that all guns are going to magically disappear just because they were banned - still hasn't happened in "Merry Olde" yet, has it? Then, prove that the attacker wouldn't have killed the person if they'd been using a piece of pipe, baseball (or cricket) bat, knife, etc... THEN we can discuss it... and my answer will be - if one life is SAVED because someone had a gun at the right time...is it worth it? still no answer to my question....

In the context of this discussion (excluding sporting concerns), the average gun fan just wants to have more than one option (asking the bad guy not to kill him) in a bad situation. It's a wish to try to take care of yourself rather than hope someone else will. Doesn't apply to me at my size, but some of my 100lb girlfriends would like to have more options than just locking themselves in the bathroom should a stalker ex come barging in the door, waiting for that 20 minute police response time. ok, it's a direct question at you... is it a price worth paying (the odd person getting killed by a gun that would have been taken out of circulation otherwise) just so that you can keep your gun? i don't suppose for one minute you'll answer this question directly

"False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils, except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm those only who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Can it be supposed that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, the most important of the code, will respect the less important and arbitrary ones, which can be violated with ease and impunity, and which, if strictly obeyed, would subject innocent person to all the vexations that the guilty alone ought to suffer? Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for the unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. They ought to be designated as laws not preventative but fearful of crimes, produced by the tumultuous impression of a few isolated facts, and not by thoughtful consideration of the inconveniences and advantages of a universal decree." - Cesare Beccaria, On Crimes and Punishments,Italian criminologist, 1764. "If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; and may posterity forget that ye were once our countrymen." - Samuel Adams i can't be arsed reading all that, what does it mean in less than 20 words?

they should have dropped kicked it off the plane

So when the president goes on national TV and says this.... BUSH: Oh, absolutely. Everybody was wrong on weapons of mass destruction. I would ask people to go back and look at the comments of many of the Democrat leadership prior to my arrival in Washington, DC, people who'd looked at the same intelligence I looked at. I'd look at the people's comments when the run-up to the war. They had looked at the same intelligence I had looked at. It was pretty well universally thought he had weapons. And there was an intelligence failure, which we're trying to address. But I was as surprised as anybody he didn't have them. ...you're saying he's lying? he wouldn't know what fucking day it was unless his aids told him

In America, about 15,000 people are murdered each year with guns. About 40,000 people are killed in accidents involving private motor vehicles. About 20,000 of those accidents involved alcohol. Eliminating private motor vehicles (people can just live close to work or take the bus) and alcohol would save more lives than eliminating guns. Should we do that? we have to do something to try and stop guns being used to kill innocent people, and our government brought these hand gun laws in to try and stop them from falling into the hands of the wrong people. we would rather take the guns away from everybody if it stops just one falling in to the hands of somebody who would use it to kill an innocent person. to us (and our government) it a price worth paying to stop the gun enthusiasts having guns to keep a few of the guns (even just one gun) from falling in to the wrong hands. we dont get all arsey like american gun fans do, we just think its a price worth paying. the average american gun fan seems to think it's a price worth paying for a few guns to get in to the wrong hands and potentially get used to kill innocent people...just as long as they get to keep their guns we dont have a gun culture over here, the average brit doesn't want to own a gun.

Yes just like the ones that killed inoocent women and children in Northern Ireland, paid for by Americans so they don't count as terrorists and can be made in to a joke.. Bad fucking taste!!!!! shhhhh i'm sure the average American doesn't want to be reminded of how they allowed people to fund a terrorist organisation (the IRA) the (very much American funded) terrorist campaign that resulted in over 3000 (more than 9/11) innocent deaths was ok because it wasn't on their soil, so the American government turns a blind eye to funding terror, they don't want to go upsetting those plastic fucking irish in NY anyway... but as soon as their soil is attacked (inevitable) then they conveniently ignore their terror funding, and suddenly go on a world campaign to fight the good fight double standards? i think so

If the British gun laws stops only 1 person from getting and using a gun who would have got hold of a gun if we had the liberal gun laws of the USA, then i'm glad and think it's worth while we'll never stop everybody who wants to get a gun and use it to rob/kill, but that doesn't mean you should stop trying how about we abolish speeding laws on the grounds we can't stop everybody from speeding?

i hate kids, so.... it's a good decision, fuck the kid and its wank stain parents

am i bovered?

should i follow it up with.... what's the difference between a woman and a turd? you don't have to cuddle a turd once you've laid it

i'd love to go into space, i have the utmost respect for astronauts

i thought this was going to be a joke... something along the lines of what's the difference between a toilet and a woman? a toilet doesn't follow you around once you've used it